On 20 May 2009, at 09:33, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>>>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a
>>>> solution in
>>>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>>>>>> I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a
>>> stab
>>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
>>> style we like...
>>>> Can I make a mild plea for After(:step) rather than AfterStep? I
>> think it
>> looks nicer and it's one less method added to the API...
>>>> That would be confusing, since After already takes arguments (tags).
So why not make the API be like
After(:scenario_tagged => "@emails") { clean_up_emails }
After(:each_scenario) { clean_up_database } #the default
After(:step) { do_stuff_for_luke }
Having less methods makes the protocol more extensible, IMO.
Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.nethttp://www.songkick.com